71 comments:

The beauty of our country is that a citizen can do that and not be arrested, threatened, audited, or otherwise face government retaliation. The President even told the audience (who vocally disapproved of the question) to be quiet and let the man finish his question.

Mind you, I think the questioner was entirely wrong, and is one of those who seeks to push our politics to the extremes rather than to engage in actual, rational debate (you disagree with me, so you should be ashamed of yourself), but I absolutely support his right to petition his government for redress of grievances, regardless of my opinion of the merits of those grievances.

I agree with Patrick and I think the man should reflect on that question as it pertains to his actions.

I have grown weary of people launching personal attacks on our leaders. I disapproved of that action when it was taken against Clinton and I feel the same way now that it is being used against President Bush.

Our leaders aren't perfect but none of them operates from malice or with a dark heart. They are simply doing the job they were elected to do. And in this case President Bush is trying to keep our country safe. So if this gentlemen doesn't agree with President Bush then he should say so instead of invoking a moral argument that Bush is bad and should be ashamed. Should he be ashamed because his politics differ from the questioners? No.

This is what I hate about audience "question" forums. Why is it so hard for people to understand the concept? The President of the United States is giving you a chance to ask a question - any question you want. SO why wouldn't people ask a question that would really elicit information? Surely, the POTUS has some information you would like to have. Surely you know that he's not going to agree with you that he's ashamed of his agenda. WHat a waste.

I should add that people who waste this opportunity by throwing up softball questions or just make congratulatory comments are even worse. What's the point in doing that? Again, there must be SOMETHING important you want to know. Mindboggling.

I would guess that the questioner is a man who has found that aggressive self-righteousness is generally effective in putting people on the defensive. Most people don't like confrontation and tend to become apologetic when confronted with this tone, although they don't normally change their behavior over the long term.

However, successful politicians have confronted and learned to deal much more hostility than most of us ever encounter, so this type of rhetoric doesn't work with the president of the United States.

I think in a way, the man's question was respectful, and a nice demonstration of the free speech we enjoy in this country. If he really feared Bush as a tyrant, would he appear in public and ask that question? And in a way, it was also another softball question, giving Bush the chance to reaffirm his belief that the surveillance program is justified, which is something most Americans and most members of Congress seem to agree with.

This guy was a hero. Too bad he hadn't read last night's newspapers, or this morning's. Then he might have asked:

Is it true as I. Lewis Libby states that you gave Vice President Cheney authorization to disclose portions of the classified NIE document to reporters? Jane Harman this afternoon is referring to you as "Leaker-In-Chief", saying "The reason we classify things is to protect our sources - those who risk their lives to give us secrets. Who knows how many sources were burned by giving Libby this 'license to leak'?

"If I had leaked the information, I'd be in jail. Why should the President be above the law?

"The President has the legal authority to declassify information, but there are normal channels for doing so. Telling an aide to leak classified information to the New York Times is not a normal channel. A normal declassification procedure would involve going back to the originating agency, such as the CIA, and then putting out a public, declassified version of the document."

Representative Waxman suggests the record looks as though you improperly classified and declassified material solely for political reasons has asked you for a full accounting of Vice President Cheney's actions.

Bill Schneider of CNN says "He was out to get his political enemy, to discredit Joe Wilson. And he did it by authorizing intelligence information to be leaked. I think most Americans would say that's a very dangerous and very foolish thing to do" and asks "serious questions are being raised, [are you] really honest and trustworthy? Do [you] level with the American people?".

Fox News reports that only 36% of the people give you a favorable job approval rating.

How do you respond to these critics? Are you being honest with us? Is there any oversight? Why should we believe you anymore?

I think Bush handled it well. The best thing for people so emotionally distraught is to treat them with respect and deal with their real issues, if they have any, like the wiretapping. I note that the paper still tries to prove its case that these events are just Bush's feeble attempts to present himself as winning back public opinion.

Though it did not have a question mark tone to it, I think the citizen's comment was in fact a question. To me, it sounded as if he was indeed asking if Bush can admit to shame (it is irrelevant whether or not we think Bush ought to, or does in facthave humility or shame or both).

Straight from the Helen Thomas school of smartass inquisitions. The problem is that the statement implies guilt. If this were a courtroom, the query would be struck down as "leading." The gentleman could just as easily have asked, "Do you ever feel ashamed? If so, concerning what?" But that would be too classy.

I think the President should check out the Burlington Liars Club. He's surely had enough practice to easily take first place just about any time he explains something. AND I'M STILL ASHAMED OF MY COUNTRIES LEADERS.

I think the "Africa" question was dumb. Africa is a continent. What you probably are referring to is the genocide in Sudan. Sudan is a country in Africa. There is currently genocide in Darfur, a region of Sudan, a country in Africa. Perhaps a question about the genocide in Darfur? A question about the genocide in the Darfur region of Sudan? A question about the genocide in Sudan? But a question about the genocide in "Africa" could refer to genocide in any number of regions in any number of countries that, frankly, unless there is a major shift in American foreign policy, no President will do anything about.

Golly, retired randy, I bet that glob of spit and bile you just plopped onto the screen convinced several people who don't share your irrational hatred of our president of just how awful our president is.

Keep it up, I'd like to see 60+ republican senators in November! =)

Out of curiosity, are you one of those old farts who just gets more and more bitter and unpleasant the older he gets? Get off my lawn! =)

Quxxo: What was revealed was that Libby was given permission to leak information in the NIE ahead of its public release. Its not a classified document in total, so many parts are leaked all the time, without violating any security rules. Its called politics. If its more than that you can yell, but based on what we *know* now you're once again the victum of wishful thinking. Remeber November 2004.

Now go back to sleep, except for Mary we were having a plaeasnt time around here..

And in a way, it was also another softball question, giving Bush the chance to reaffirm his belief that the surveillance program is justified, which is something most Americans and most members of Congress seem to agree with.

Let me get this straight Althouse: You're saying that most Americans and most of Congress agree is it okay to spy on American's WITHOUT A WARRENT as the FISA outilines? If so, you got any evidence?

I have to disagree that the question was respectfully or even a question. It was a way for some left-winger to be a cool hero to the code pink chicks. And a meaningless piece of drivel. He had to know the media would play it up like he did something brave.

to shadycharacter. (apt name.) Yes, I'm a bitter old coot who served 6 years in the Army, A life Member of the VFW, and a Retired Union Carpenter, who decided to retire early, so I could get at least some of my social security before it's given to Haliburton or some poor underperforming oil company. Growing up, I learned that my country did not start wars, we ended them. The Uniform Code of Military Justice, called for humane treatment of prisoners of war, and it was drummed into us at every turn. I always assumed my country would never lie to me. Oh yes, I'm a bitter old coot.

retired randy, if you're telling the truth about your military background, then thank you for your service. That said, your past service doesn't make you immune to criticism for coming in here and spewing silly talking points.

"Retired Union Carpenter"

Sounds like you have the democrat/leftist union rhetoric down pat.

"Growing up, I learned that my country did not start wars, we ended them."

Really? Well, who startedthis one? As far as I'm concerned we're finishing what should have been finished 15 years ago.

of course most americans think the goverment should spy on suspected terrorists. Who is disputing that?

but the FACT of the matter is that MOST americans do not think that any American President--Republian or Democrat--should be given a blank check to spy on americans without any oversight. Bush is saying "trust me." If Hillary Clinton was President, would you simply trust her?

FISA outlines a process whereby any and all domestic spying must be reviewed before or after the fact. If that process was somehow hindering the President's ability to fight terrorism all the President had to do was go to the Republican congress and have it changed. But he chose to IGNORE THE LAW undermining the balance of powers outlined in our CONSTITUTION.

HOw many of you would want President Hillary Clinton to have a blank check to spy on Americans WITHOUT ANY OVERSIGHT WHATSOEVER? Get my point?

As a fellow former military member who served 12 years in the Air Force, I shouldn't have to point out to you that the UCMJ still mandates the humane treatment of prisoners of war. That's why those that have mistreated them during this war have been tried by courts martial and are serving various prison terms in addition to the dishonrable discharges they have received. Much like any military member was punished when they illegally mistreated POWs in prior wars -- including the one you served in no doubt.

And we don't start wars? You think this is the first?

And I got sad news for you, your government has lied to you long before this Administration. You just didn't mind the lies before this because you agreed with their purpose.

I want to thank you for your military service but I nonetheless need to question your statement:

"[I] decided to retire early, so I could get at least some of my social security before it's given to Haliburton or some poor underperforming oil company."

Please tell me you don't really believe that. You discredit yourself when you write those types of statements. Now I just shake my head and feel sorry for you. Not because you're bitter as someone mentioned earlier but because you live in an alternate reality.

"...Why did Bush vow to the American public that he would "get to the bottom" of the plame leak if he authorized the leak himself?..."

Wait, did I just witness a complete false statement... a totally made up story, a stretching of the truth... did Brando really leap from Bush authorizing Libby to discuss the NIE report a few days ahead of public release to Bush authorizing the leak of Plame's name?

Of course! It's pretty typical of the left to pedal their lies and stories... Ho hum.

Go back to reading about Che and Hugo, they must make a lot of sense to you.

"I would hope from time to time that you have the humility and grace to be ashamed of yourself."

is about as useful as

"Have you stopped beating your wife?"

There's nothing insightful. There's nothing worthwhile. It's a waste of a couple minutes of airtime to let somebody know you don't like them.

To any liberals are reading this site: there's a pretty good chance the President knows you don't like him and think he's Satan incarnate. Think of something tough. Put him on the spot. This doesn't do that.

"Mr. Libby did not assert in his testimony to a grand jury, first reported on the Web site of The New York Sun, that Mr. Bush or Mr. Cheney had authorized him to reveal the name of an undercover C.I.A. officer, Valerie Wilson. Mr. Libby is scheduled to go on trial next year on perjury and obstruction charges connected to the disclosure of Ms. Wilson's name."

It seems pretty likely that the president has confronted his alcoholism via AA. What you get from AA doesn't come free; I would guess he has more insight into his own reservoirs of shame and guilt, and the grace one can nonetheless receive, than people who want to play gotcha for the cams.

As has been pointed out, the President cannot illegally disclose confidential information. The power to classify and declassify information is his, as the Executive, and is arguably part of his plenary Article II powers, and is delegated to those working for him.

But while we are on the subject of Constitutional powers, I find Libby's motion to dismiss his indictment on the basis of Fitzgerald acting as a principle officer, despite him not being confirmed by the Senate, interesting. Apparently, he has violated any number of DOJ rules, including subpoening reporters - which apparently requires approval by the AG or his deputies. It shall be interesting to see what happens.

"It seems pretty likely that the president has confronted his alcoholism via AA."

The preznit never went to AA. He supposedly kicked alcohol all on his own. After Katrina more than one report was heard that he had started drinking again. It would help to explain the mysterious injuries, the pretzel incident, the downtime in Crawford, and Laura's love of Desparate Housewives. "I am married to the president of the United States, and here's our typical evening: Nine o'clock, Mr. Excitement here is sound asleep, and I'm watching Desperate Housewives— with Lynne Cheney. Ladies and gentlemen, I am a desperate housewife. I mean, if those women on that show think they're desperate, they oughta be with George."

As has been pointed out, the President cannot illegally disclose confidential information. The power to classify and declassify information is his, as the Executive, and is arguably part of his plenary Article II powers, and is delegated to those working for him.

Can a President abuse his legal powers?

Can a President take what is normally a legal power and use it in an illegal manner by intentionally misapplying it? Say by declassifying information without following established procedures in order to further political and not national interests?

Is incompetence in his office ever grounds for impeachment? Could gross incompetence some how be a high crime or misdemeanor?

Are you okay with the argument that President Clinton could not have illegally transferred classified satellite and rocket navigation technology to China?

If Reagan had just up and given classified Star Wars Technology to Gorbachev against the advice of the Congress as he declared he wanted to would you have been okay with that?

As has been pointed out, the President cannot illegally disclose confidential information.

Obviously. Nixon and Johnson probably did. Clinton probably would have, except that it was his wife who had those FBI files pulled and the IRS sent to auditing his enemies.

Can a President take what is normally a legal power and use it in an illegal manner by intentionally misapplying it?

See above.

Say by declassifying information without following established procedures in order to further political and not national interests?

No.

Those procedures were put in place under his (or his precedesssors') authority.

Is incompetence in his office ever grounds for impeachment? Could gross incompetence some how be a high crime or misdemeanor?

Doubtful, but I am sure that you could c come up with some gross incompetence that would put this into question. But not even Carter was that bad.

Are you okay with the argument that President Clinton could not have illegally transferred classified satellite and rocket navigation technology to China?

The problem there was that to the extent it was done, it was done for personal, venal, reasons - mostly for illegal campaign contributions (and soliciting campaign contributions in this way in not within his pleanary Article II powers).

But if he had done it for strategic reasons, that would have been different.

Note, btw, the closest Clinton analogy was his trading those last minute pardons for campaign contributions for his wife and commissions for her brothers. While quite venal, that most likely wasn't impeachable, even if he hadn't been on the way out the door.

If Reagan had just up and given classified Star Wars Technology to Gorbachev against the advice of the Congress as he declared he wanted to would you have been okay with that?

I wouldn't have liked it, but it wouldn't have been illegal.

As has been pointed out, the President cannot illegally disclose confidential information.

Come on Bruce, you will have to do better than that.

Nope. Besides, the stuff that you threw out is different orders of magnitude worse than anything done here by President Bush. He had arguably (which is all that counts) good national defense reasons to do what he did. No second guessing here. Hundreds, if thousands, of documents are declassified every day under his authority, and this was just part of one of them.

The question is, who gets to determine which documents are classified and which are not. And the answer is that it is typically someone working for the President, most likely at some median level. But that authority is delegated them by the Executive. In short, they are exercising his power when they do it.

So, you are suggesting that his employees can declassify documents and he, from whom they get that power, can't? That doesn't make sense.

Quxxo is back, alas.His absence from the gay-marriage threads helped open the way for a largely civil and rant-free discussion of substantive issues. Quxxo must have been unable to summon up any interest in a topic that wasn't a platform for diatribes against his great bete noire, George Bush.

And to any of the bright bulbs on this thread who think i'm a commie liberal, I would then guess they think that the likes of William Buckley is a commie liberal as well as Arlen Spectre and Chuck Hagel and Brent Scowcroft, just to name a few for they hold many of the very same views I have put forth on this thread and others in the past. Alot of commies around all the sudden, eh? I didn't know commies could be conservatives who served in the Reagan Administration. Almost all of the American Public is are now commies it seems.

And to any of the bright bulbs on this thread who think i'm a commie liberal, I would then guess they think that the likes of William Buckley is a commie liberal as well as Arlen Spectre and Chuck Hagel and Brent Scowcroft, just to name a few for they hold many of the very same views I have put forth on this thread and others in the past. Alot of commies around all the sudden, eh? I didn't know commies could be conservatives who served in the Reagan Administration. Almost all of the American Public is are now commies it seems.

Just out of curiosity, how much are you being paid and by whom for each time you type the word “commie”?

While the question was clearly not designed to solicit an actual answer, I think it was entirely appropriate. For several years the President has only appeared in forums where the only questions were fawning and sycophantic. Now that the White House has decided, strictly as a tactical maneuver, that the President should take questions from the general public, people are getting their panties in a twist when a questioner is confrontational.

I don't "disagree" with Bush. I think he is one of the worst Presidents in our history, and has made disastrous decisions that have severely damaged our country. Bush's supporters would like nothing more than to have his opponents agree to disagree, and keep everything on a genteel level. Well, after several years of being called a traitor who only wants to help our country's enemies, I say screw that. This administration has used secrecy and unaccountability to get their way. Sorry if they're finally hearing the voice of a significant portion of the population.

And I always find it amusing when someone credits the Preident with being so cool under fire, he "drives the left crazy." Please tell me how his response to this gentleman has driven anyone "crazy." More triumphalism from the right, declaring victory no matter what the circumstances.

I also find it interesting that the questioner, who spoke in an even, steasdy tone, without raising his voice, is described as having "aggressive self-righteousness," who "belch(ed) out a big cloud of smug," is "emotionally distraught," and engaging in "smartass inquisitions," as "a way for some left-winger to be a cool hero to the code pink chicks. And a meaningless piece of drivel," because "It's pretty typical of the left to pedal their lies and stories."

I've seen the light. We should follow the right's example of only engaging in polite discourse. And remember, the President is worthy of respect, no matter what he does, while private citizens who oppose him are open to whatever vitriol we can fling at them.

Put yourself in the shoes of someone who sincerely believes that Bush's behavior has been reprehensible, then look at the way many Republicans still talk about Clinton, whose lie about his personal behavior rose to the level of an impeachable offense. There's not a lot of motivation to put on the kid gloves.

It seems pretty likely that the president has confronted his alcoholism via AA.

I believe that it is still an open question whether Bush was ever or is an alcoholic. AFAIK he did some heavy drinking when he was younger, had one DUI (which is still one more than I have) some thirty years ago but quit drinking when he turned 40 because he found that it sapped his energy. Not a lot to go on for a charge of alcoholism IMO.

"I would hope from time to time that you have the humility and grace to be ashamed of yourself" is a cheap shot without anything substantive to it. Ask a tough question (I would assume from reading this the person did). But this is the rhetorical equivalent of saying "I know you are, but what am I?"

If it makes you feel better, that's all it's doing. The President is challenged on a daily basis and has been since the day he entered office. The only thing this accomplishes is allowing somebody to do it to his face. Feeling the need to is entirely a result of personal animosity. No debate is advanced. No knowledge is delivered. No explanations or reasoning is gained out of it. It's a bitter petty attack and nothing more.

If he delivered himself to hostile audiences more often, why would that make sophomoric insults more unjustified? Is it justified now just because it should have happened a long time ago? Is that all?

Serious question, I don't mean this with any sarcasm - who specifically (and when) has called you a traitor?

I'm gettin paid by the Che Guevara Trust fund, with a little extra "speed money" from Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro. I am also a campaign worker for leftist candidate in Mexico, Lopez Obrador. And if that is not enough, I smuggle some coca plants from Bolivia with the blessing of Evo Morales, and I regularly the tango with the newly elected, leftist female president of Chile, Michelle Bachelet.

Ann, your pull quote (well, CNN's) misled me! I thought that was the citizen's entire question, and I read it just like everyone else, as unhelpful and reflecting better on the President than the questioner. Then I saw someone quote the whole thing:

"You never stop talking about freedom, and I appreciate that. But while I listen to you talk about freedom, I see you assert your right to tap my telephone, to arrest me and hold me without charges, to try to preclude me from breathing clean air and drinking clean water and eating safe food. If I were a woman, you'd like to restrict my opportunity to make a choice... ("I'm not your favorite guy... go ahead") about whether I can abort a pregnancy... What I wanted to say to you, is that I, in my lifetime, I have never felt more ashamed of, nor more frightened by, my leadership in Washington, including the presidency, or the Senate. ("No, let her speak") I would hope, I feel like, despite your rhetoric, that compassion and common sense have been left far behind during your administration. And I would hope, from time to time, that you have the humility and the grace to be ashamed of yourself, inside yourself... I also want to say I really appreciate the courtesy of allowing me to speak... That is part of what this country is about."

In the full comment the speaker comes off as trying not to abuse their freedom of speech, but appreciating that Bush let him exercise it. And the part about freedom talk, and the part about being frightened of our government, are heartfelt concerns I share and that I think is important for a leader to hear. No member of his inner circle would tell him that.

The pull quote is still kind of obnoxious, and dragging abortion into it is too much, but... it's a lot less disrespectful than you and CNN made it seem.